I’m suggesting there are two modes of thought expressed through two modes of language. — Brett

Sure, and the suggestion is wrong because "two modes of language" is meaningless. It's two modes of communication -- phatic and informational. Communication and language are not synonymous. Communication is one aspect of language -- how language is externalized in various ways. Language itself appears to be a system of thought, as indicated by it's characteristic use (viz., you're talking to yourself all the time but rarely communicate those thoughts).

Yes, but the thought expressed as phatic expression is essentially functional, in the sense of being socio-pragmatic, which is what I’m calling primitive because it’s purpose is ancient. — Brett

I'm not even sure phatic communication is an expression of thought, but let's say it is. It's certainly true that phatic means socio-pragmatic, and that social interactions/communication goes way back in time, from primates to whales to elephants. So what? All those pieces are correct. What's incorrect is the statement "language then is a social function." That's taking one aspect of communication (namely, phatic communication) and using this to define language generally. That's incorrect. The characteristic use of language is not communication, whether phatic or informational: its characteristic use is for thought.

So not inadequate but mostly phatic in function and to a lesser degree information. What does the information consist of? — Brett

Of what gets externalized in communication, most is phatic. The rest can be exchange of information. What "information" gets exchanged? There's an infinite amount of information that can be exchanged - I don't understand the relevance of that question. You can pick literally any example you'd like. Giving someone directions is exchanging information. Teaching physics is exchanging information. Etc etc etc.

Edit: language then is a social function, cohesive and bonding. — Brett

No, language then is for thought.

I don't know, it seems a little cheap to me. Critiquing the status quo - even voluminously or insightfully - is a relatively trivial undertaking. Justifying the principles by which one does so in the battle of ideas, where one has so many competitors, is more ambitious. Until he does so, he is leaving the substance of his philosophical system open to the reconstruction of an interpreter, and Chomsky's inner consistency, and even his first principles, are still very much in question. Simply, it is just not at all clear that Chomsky is right. — Virgo Avalytikh

Chomsky has repeatedly stated, for the last 60 years, what he sees as the essential principle of anarchism:that power should be justified. That is to say, that structures of power, hierarchy, domination, and control are not self-justifying -- that they have the responsibility to justify themselves and, if they can't, should be dismantled.

It's hard to imagine how one manages to overlook this, given Chomsky's presence over the years and his hundreds of books, articles, and YouTube videos.

But I’ll go along with the use of language being thought and that what does get externalised is a strange, inefficient or inaccurate, form of communication.

So language is inadequate for communication?

Edit: or there is only so much we wish to communicate through language. — Brett

My sentence was misleading. I forgot to put "most of what gets externalized." Obviously of the small part of what does get externalized, there's exchange of information. But most of the externalization seems to be phatic communication rather than exchange of information. That's what I meant.

So no, language is not "inadequate for communication."

It seems to have different uses: enquiring, confirming, emoting. — Brett

I'm not sure what "confirming" refers to here. "Emoting" is also vague -- one can emote without language. Animals can emote as well in this sense. Furthermore, one can communicate emotions without language -- through a hairstyle, by slamming doors, by mien, by gait, etc.

Regardless, to say these are characteristic uses of language is just a mistake. When looking at language's characteristic use, just statistically speaking, it's for thought, not communication. Very little gets externalized, and [most of] what does get externalized is only communication in a strange sense -- what's usually called "phatic" communication -- hardly exchanging information in any sense that's usually believed.

Ok, so I'll repeat: What's the characteristic use of language?

Turns out we've discussed this before: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/364151

I may have missed it (I’ve realised my reading of posts is a bit dodgy at times) but if it’s not communication then what is it? — Brett

Well when looking at the "function" of something, as vague as that notion is, what's usually done is to look at characteristic use to give you some insight in to the object's function. So let's do the same thing with language. What's the characteristic use?

The point was that ‘language’ may not be the primary function. Chomsky himself practically admits this when he talks about Music or some other capacity. The neural basis maybe due to another primary faculty with ‘language’ piggybacking. — I like sushi

As I said before, music and arithmetic may have evolved separately, or they could be piggybacking off of language. There's a much more plausible reason for believing language evolved first and the others are derivative in some way. This is what Chomsky is saying when he discusses music and arithmetic.

True, Merge may have been used in other ways, as was discussed in the Science article.

The case of the man with no language holds no interest for you? Not willing to speculate? — I like sushi

It's interesting, sure. We can speculate all day long, but why pick out one strange case study to base your interest in linguistics? (So far, these are the examples you've mentioned.) They're not very sceintific or even really linguistics.

It wasn’t a scientific study it was one woman ignoring (not knowing) that it was apparently ‘impossible’ to teach someone a language after adolescence - according to linguists. If the story isn’t fabricated then it backs up Chomsky’s position perhaps? — I like sushi

It doesn't really have much to say about Chomsky's position concerning UG, but his wife did a lot of study on language acquisition in children and he's held the position that there's a critical period for learning language, yes. So if it's possible to teach someone a language when they've been exposed to no language all their lives, then yes that's very interesting and would indicate that perhaps there is no critical period, depending on the level of sophistication a language gets acquired. But it's impossible to tell from this case study.

Much more serious work has been done that indicates the opposite, like the one I mentioned about the deafblind: it seems like the limit is roughly 18 months of age, after which it's impossible to acquire. I wonder: is THAT not fascinating? It should be, as there's much more evidence for it. The fact that you pick out these sensational cases indicates to me you're not very serious about learning much about the field of linguistics.

There have been plenty of studies into Piraha so to claim there is no science there is plain bloody-minded. Linguistics is a very young ‘science’. There is no conclusive evidence for a lack of ‘recursion’ within that language to date - that is the point of being scientific rather than dismissive. — I like sushi

I agree, there is no conclusive evidence, yet it is often claimed that there is. And even if there was, it wouldn't matter to what Chomsky is talking about. So it's an interesting study in anthropology.

I side with the view that language is at least mostly an innate faculty, but I’m not entirely convinced that language is really worth looking at as some ‘separate’ function of human cognition. — I like sushi

Well fine, but that's not saying much. Of course you agree language is something separate from, say, digestion. The visual system is separate from the circulatory system as an object of study. Are there overlaps and interactions? Yes, of course. I don't disagree with that. But we're trying to find out what language is and what the principles underlying it are.

The word "function" is used very loosely anyway, so we have to be careful. Is the function of our skeleton for motion or to keep our organs from falling down, for example? The function of language has always been thought to be for communication, as you know. I just think that's completely wrong, which is where this thread started. We could go into that a little more maybe, but otherwise I'm not seeing what the real issue is here, other than clearing away confusions.

This has little to do with my main worry which I did admit was irrational. — Nils Loc

Not just irrational -- incoherent.

There is only what it is like to be something. We do not experience what it is like to be nothing. — Nils Loc

Former is a groundless assertion; the latter completely wrong. We experience "nothing" all the time -- we know we do, but just have no memory of it. A dreamless sleep is a kind of nothing. Driving all the way home automatically without thinking about it is a kind of "nothing" -- the use of equipment, the experience of "flow," are all kinds of nothing. None of this involves a subject/object distinction, none of it involves thinking or reflecting or even "consciousness," and yet we do these things all the time.

Therefore being (what it is like to be something) is all there is. — Nils Loc

That's just silly subjectivizing. That has a long history in philosophy, and is completely wrong.

It's as incoherent as the hard problem of consciousness. How could there possibly be satisfying explanation for qualia (being like something rather than nothing)? — Nils Loc

The whole "problem" of consciousness is nonsense, because no one knows how to formulate what "consciousness" is. So, like the mind/body "problem," it's simply incoherent. A waste of time.

I'm not generalizing human experience only, I'm extending any experience in any capacity (what it is like to be something/anything). — Nils Loc

Fine. The only beings that experience are living things -- namely, animals. That's like saying that all things that don't "experience" in this sense, that aren't living, aren't "beings." It's totally unmotivated.

The existence of a rock depends upon (any) something for which it is like to be. Therefore I'm proposing a primacy to the experience of being (the experience of an entity) and making it universal. The state of any existence is relatively bound to experience of what it is like to be something. — Nils Loc

Eh, this is just subjectivizing the world. I would say it's Kantian, but it's not even coherent enough to be Kantian. Yes, the world gets interpreted by human beings through perception. That tells us nothing about being.

Lends a bit of grandiose and useful obscurity to try to lure folks in. — Nils Loc

Better to lure people in by stating a clear question or proposition.

I can't imagine that there is anything but an experience (what it is like to be something). Death is like dreamless sleep and as soon as time begins (for something it is like for there to be time) we are.

If you don't care you are free to go. No need to harass me. — Nils Loc

Sounds good. This is going nowhere.

I meant it may not be a faculty that is ‘language specific’. Meaning that ‘language’ may just be a spin-off of other systems. — I like sushi

That "it" may not be a faculty that is language specific: what's the "it" refer to? There's no question other systems are involved in language.

Linguistics. What else? — I like sushi

Well nothing you gave as examples is really linguistics. Linguistics is a science. What you cite -- feral children, Piraha, and a case study --is anthropology, maybe having some significance for the study of language (not much, it turns out). But it's at the periphery at best, and as discussed before the Piraha case and the "Man Without Words" case is rife with confusions and are remarkably unscientific.

If this is what's most fascinating to you, I'd recommend first learning something more about linguistics. It doesn't fascinate you that language is structure-dependent? It's not fascinating how quickly children acquire language? That we're the only species that can acquire language? That it's been attempted to teach primates sign language (remember Nim Chimpsky)?

This video is 8 minutes. Worth watching, straight from the horse's mouth, and gives a good overview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLk47AMBdTA

It's not at all misleading, as it's more natural to use "being" as a condition of a subject experincing and reflecting upon the world. I find it odd you disagree with my usage. — Nils Loc

That's not at all natural. Using being to describe a "subject experiencing and reflecting" is a very narrow and idiosyncratic use. "Being" is used all the time for literally anything. I am. You are. The world is. That chair is. Human experience is. Your experience is. All objects, all entities.

Your experience is your experience. It's one aspect of being, nothing more. To generalize human experience to all of the world, nature, the universe -- to "being" generally -- is not only misleading, it's incoherent.

While it likely that a rock has no independent being, it is a dependent feature of our (and any) being. — Nils Loc

This is nearly incoherent. You say it's likely it has no independent being, then state categorically that the rock is a dependent feature of our being?

Yes, I'm worried, for the sake of chit chat, about whether being (an experience of what anything is like) is an eternal condition. If I am being now, won't I be again later (after death/birth)? — Nils Loc

Saying "I am being" is redundant. "I am" already implies being. I'll say it over and over again: being is not an entity and not a property.

My advice: stop using the word "being" -- you're clueless about its meaning.

Stick to your concern: experience, particularly your own experience (your life). You're worried about an afterlife of some kind. That's all this has boiled down to, when stripped of incoherent, multisyllabic, unnecessary talk about "being."

There's no evidence whatsoever that we live again, that there's reincarnation or a heaven or anything else. If there is, we certainly have no memory of it. This could be your millionth life, in that case -- and you have no idea. So who cares.

I find that to be a very poor basis to work from. I’m not denying that recursion is important but surely there is more. — I like sushi

Of course there's more. How language manifests itself is very complex. What I'm talking about is the uniquely human characteristic of language -- and clearly there is one, or else other animals could acquire language. Which, again, they can't do. So there's obviously something we have -- some genetically determined structure -- that allows us to pick out language from the environment, whereas a monkey or a songbird can't. That's not an easy question and we still don't know how it's done, but the point is learning something about the principles involved, and the only way to study this is to study what's acquired.

One property is that of recursive enumeration. Language is a digital infinite system, and any digital infinite system has embedded in it Merge. This is true for any language. The fact that language is structure-dependent is interesting as well -- and universal. Why don't we see linear-dependence?

Personally I find the idea of an innate faculty of language to be a useful distinction for investigation. Both sides of the argument have weight, butI cannot see either as being exclusively ‘true’ unless it is framed in a very specific manner. — I like sushi

There's no one serious out there that believes the faculty of language in humans isn't innate. No one. It's like arguing the visual system isn't innate. Of course there's a genetic component to language, unless we're angels. There isn't "both sides" to this argument any more than there's two sides to the whether the earth is spherical.

The most fascinating cases I have seen in this area is still ‘The Man with no Language’, feral children and Piraha. — I like sushi

In what area?

My point is surprisingly simple. Being is an experience. Non-being is not an experience. After my death the experience of being will reoccur because being is what constitutes experience. "Reoccur" is an inadequate or incorrect term because there is nothing that links specific beings and identities between lives. Nothing that I identify as myself will recur but being will always be. There will always be an experience because that is all there can be. — Nils Loc

Let me see if I can parse this a little: :
(1) being is an experience.
(2) non-being is not an experience.
(3) Being will always be.

I don't see how equating being with experience gets us anywhere. "Experience" is something that happens to a living being: human beings and animals. The being of a rock has no experience. If you equate experience with being, fine -- but why bother? It's misleading. "Being" as a word is good enough.

Human experience does not reoccur. Human experience is one aspect of being, yes, but only that.

Being is surely more complex than I've made it out to be, as an on and off state of affairs rather than a continuum. Qualia might work as a better substitute for my use of being. — Nils Loc

Qualia is the subjective experience of something -- "What it's like to be." What it's like to be you, or me, or a bat. That tells you nothing about being except for a specific instance of being: a human being.

In any case I'm not saying much of anything. I'm merely pointing to being and the fear about it that will pass but likely return. I might even concede that I'm irrationally paranoid about the eternity of having to experience what any something is like. — Nils Loc

I really don't see what you're talking about, honestly. Fear about being makes no sense. Fear that being will "pass but likely return" is equally meaningless. If you're worried that your life will reoccur in an eternal recurrence or in reincarnation, fine -- just say that. (You must be saying this, otherwise what is there to "fear"?) In that case, you'll have no memory of it. But you'd be talking about your experience -- your life. Not "being" in the general sense, which includes literally everything.

It seems Chomsky was trying to connect the idea that the FLN may have been an exaptation that allowed for a number of "mental" capabilities that carried over to language abilities. The implication is that tying the FLN to an origin just in communication would be an error and to "take the bait" of mistaking the consequence for its cause. — schopenhauer1

Exactly right. And perhaps an exaptation not only language, but arithmetic, music, etc. All unique properties of humans, all with this property that defines FLN.

Take arithmetic. All humans have arithmetical capacity, for example. But it's almost never been used. Alfred Russel Wallace pointed this out.

If you take the core computational principle of language -- Merge -- and you restrict the lexicon to a single element, you get arithmetic. So it could be that it simply piggybacked off language -- which wouldn't be a big surprise, as it's another digital infinite system (which are very rare in nature).

Music -- same thing. There's gotta be a "UM" to this as well. Maybe it's a separate evolution, but maybe it just piggybacked off language.

Communication must have come much later in evolution by this perspective, as what evolved was a digital infinite system (an I-Language) which eventually spread genetically in the community and was mapped onto the sensorimotor system

Well the cause might be something like a FLN and the reason for the FLN might be factors such as tool-making and more complex social awareness. — schopenhauer1

Whatever happened, it had to be useful enough to spread in the community. That's a given, otherwise we wouldn't be here -- whatever the story. As to what selective advantage this had, yes those are all good suggestions.

Premises:
1) Language is not communication.
2) Only human beings have a capacity for language.

Implication: human beings dominate Earth.

Does the implication sound familiar?
Is anyone triggered by it?
Is anyone surprised that it generates controversy?
Who holds the majority opinion regarding soundness?
Does it boil down to belief? — Galuchat

(1) The core element of language isn't communication. Communication is one aspect of language.
(2) So far as we know, only human beings have this capacity.

Human beings dominating Earth isn't really an implication, it's a fact. These days, a very unfortunate fact.

To be fair, I don't think StreetlightX is an intellectual adolescent — Galuchat

Anyone who refuses to read the very person he thinks he's criticizing, consumes nothing but second-hand interpretations, throws around insults, all with the airs of superiority -- is indeed intellectually adolescent. I was the same way when I was younger. I would read a few popular books and articles critical of some view, and then felt as if I acquired some special knowledge which those others -- those stupid teachers, professors, and other such followers of this view -- had failed to do.

Turns out, people like that are a dime a dozen.

I think consciousness and therefore being is inevitable because there is nothing else that enters into it. — Nils Loc

I don't understand this sentence. "Nothing else that enters into it"? What's "it"? Being? What does the "else" refer to?

It seems that Heidegger posed Das Nicht (The Nothing) as a source of anxiety. Please expand about it if you can. — Nils Loc

Sure. What Heidegger is driving at, in my reading, is that human beings have no "nature," and so there's nothing to ground our choices on. Custom is our nature -- we are what we interpret ourselves to be, usually through what we do in a given time and at a given place. So we're a kind of "nullity." And this is a fact, he says, that we're dimly aware of -- and it's anxiety-provoking, because it's groundless and uncertain. Sartre later took this up with "Being and Nothingness," and claimed that we're "condemned to be free" in a sense. This is the basis for that analysis -- although I'm not very familiar with Sartre.

My concern is about being as the only possible state of awareness which will never end as the source of anxiety, however irrational this is. — Nils Loc

I don't understand this either. We exist, we are. The world is. That's being. Being is everything, every being, and the basis on which anything "shows up" for us at all. Awareness is being. Non-awareness is being. Your life will end, believe me, and so will your anxiety. So to be worried that anxiety will never end is indeed completely irrational, and also incoherent -- unless you're afraid you'll be reincarnated or something like that.

Being ends but it likely starts again, like waking up from sleep. I never experience sleep though I sleep, I am unfortunately always awake. It can't be otherwise. — Nils Loc

I find your sentences almost completely incoherent, unfortunately. Please make an effort to be clearer -- I'm not a mind-reader and have no idea where you're coming from or how you're defining your terms.

Being doesn't end -- beings end. Waking up from sleep is talking about states of conscious awareness. "I am unfortunately always awake"? What does that mean, you've never fallen asleep? Seems you've just contradicted yourself.

Thank you. Hardly a "war," though. (For it to be a war, you need an opponent of some kind. StreetlightX is still stuck in intellectual adolescence -- the type that'll call Aristotle an "idiot" for such-and-such a reason. I don't take that seriously.)

But I'm glad my responses prove interesting to the others who are reading this thread -- that was my hope.

I’m very interested in how we distinguish between general communication and language. — I like sushi

One way of distinguishing is to analyze a property of all human languages: that of recursive enumeration. The ability, as Von Humboldt noted, of using finite means for infinite ends -- shared with the number system -- appears to be a unique, innate property of human beings. Communication, on the other hand, is a broader conception and one that is indeed shared with many other species, down to insects.

So you're clueless. Fair enough.

"Language evolved for reasons other than language." LOL. Thanks for the laughs.

And when the specifics amount to "it was probs for navigation or something", that's not science, that's beer room speculation over a bong. — StreetlightX

Regarding your confusion about what is being discussed regarding navigation (quoting the one article you've half-read and completely failed to understand):

"The question is whether particular components of the functioning of FLN are adaptations for language, specifically acted upon by natural selection— or, even more broadly, whether FLN evolved for reasons other than communication. [...] Comparative work has generally focused on animal communication or the capacity to acquire a human-created language. If, however, one entertains the hypothesis that recursion evolved to solve other computational problems such as navigation, number quantification, or social relationships, then it is possible that other animals have such abilities, but our research efforts have been targeted at an overly narrow search space (Fig. 3)." (my emphasis)
"This discovery, in turn, would open the door to another suite of puzzles: Why did humans, but no other animal, take the power of recursion to create an open-ended and limitless system of communication? Why does our system of recursion operate over a broader range of elements or inputs (e.g., numbers, words) than other animals?[...] Either way, these are testable hypotheses, a refrain that highlights the importance of comparative approaches to the faculty of language."

Regarding your confusion about "adaptation":

"The question is not whether FLN in toto is adaptive. By allowing us to communicate an endless variety of thoughts, recursion is clearly an adaptive computation."
[...] "Hypothesis 3 raises the possibility that structural details of FLN may result from such preexisting constraints, rather than from direct shaping by natural selection targeted specifically at communication. Insofar as this proves to be true, such structural details are not, strictly speaking, adaptations at all."

Regarding your confusion that "language evolved for reasons other than language":

"Although many aspects of FLB very likely arose in this manner, the important issue for these hypotheses is whether a series of gradual modifications could lead eventually to the capacity of language for infinite generativity. Despite the inarguable existence of a broadly shared base of homologous mechanisms involved in FLB, minor modifications to this foundational system alone seem inadequate to generate the fundamental difference— discrete infinity— between language and all known forms of animal communication." (My emphasis)

"Discrete infinity and constraints on learning. The data summarized thus far, although far from complete, provide overall support for the position of continuity between humans and other animals in terms of FLB. However, we have not yet addressed one issue that many regard as lying at the heart of language: its capacity for limitless expressive power, captured by the notion of discrete infinity. It seems relatively clear, after nearly a century of intensive research on animal communication, that no species other than humans has a comparable capacity to recombine meaningful units into an unlimited variety of larger structures, each differing systematically in meaning."

It gets a little boring correcting (deliberate) mischaracterizations, but I'm reserving hope that there may eventually be something interesting that comes out of this.

If you’re trying to help StreetlightX derail your own thread you’ve pretty much succeeded. Kind of sad, but such is the nature of online forums. — I like sushi

If there's something else that's been raised, let me know. Perhaps I missed it. But I'm not seeing anything else except his misunderstandings and various perplexed responses, mine included.

That would be a great answer if Chomsky was not famous for entirely disregading linguisitc development in children — StreetlightX

Is this a joke? What exactly did he "disregard"? Carol Chomsky studied language acquisition in children for years, actually. I suppose that was all disregarded as well.

We all understand your feelings about Chomsky: you feel he's set linguistics back. Fine. It would be fun to have a conversation about the evidence. So far all you've offered is straw men.

So I'll ask directly: Besides the Science article, what of Chomsky's have you read or seen? Have you bothered to check whether your understanding of his position is accurate? If not, there's no sense pretending to have a rational discussion.

If you take a baby from any culture on Earth, and raised them in (say) the United States, they'd grow up learning English. This simple fact -- and the fact that no other animal can acquire language -- is what's being studied in generative grammar. The vast diversity of languages is interesting, but trivial. We're interested in the genetic components that allow for such rich diversity.

This is all hard to see for some people, although it should be completely uncontroversial.

The exaptation thesis has to ignore all of this, because it is utterly committed to the idea that language evolved for means other than language. It has to, on the basis of nothing other than a prior, theoretical and dogmatic commitment, entirely stuff all of the above under the bed and argue it away because it cannot, on pain of incoherence, admit any of it into it's theoretical remit. It's alternative? Some middling unsubstantiated, unargued for bullshit about how it probably developed from some other reason (unknown) than hopped the genetic barrier over to humans for, again, no reason given. Language is rich, full of rich features, many of which can, and have been tracked closely with the ways in which it has developed over time, among cultures, in addition to anthropogenesis. To condense this all into some unspecified 'genetic modification' is nothing less than waving a magic wand stamped 'science' and thinking this should be taken seriously by anyone with half a brain. — StreetlightX

Eh, more nonsense. You repeatedly quote the Evans article. So here's a response, for those interested: https://www.languagesoftheworld.info/generative-linguistics/does-universal-grammar-theory-imply-that-language-are-all-the-same-response-to-vyvyan-evans-part-2.html

Of course there is a wide diversity of language on Earth. Of course data (the culture in which one is raised, the sounds and words one hears, etc) is involved. Of course languages (English, Italian, Swahili) constantly change. To study all of this is indeed important.

None of this has anything to do whatsoever with UG, which is the name for the theory of the genetic component of language, nothing less. If you're denying any genetic component, then best of luck to you.

Either language is unique to humans, or it isn't. If it is, we want to study what the properties are that makes it unique.

Chomsky on UG:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbKO-9n5qmc

"The only question is, what is it?"

And that can be discussed rationally.

Of course, for those not labouring under the delusions of Chomskian Grammar, the sheer diversity of various syntactic constraints were not so much useless hay to sort though in order to look for the needle of universals, but the very stuff of linguistic theory itself. — StreetlightX

Yes, studying different cultures, base number systems, music, etc., is all very interesting and important as well. Studying various languages of the world, thousands of them in fact, already assumes a universality: you're studying human language. What's interesting is asking what properties make up that thing you're studying.

"The very stuff of linguistic theory itself" is a complete delusion. Similarly absurd: "The very stuff of physics is studying what's going on outside your window."

"[W]e suggest that by considering the possibility that FLN evolved for reasons other than language"

This seems to be where you're confused. As I've repeated several times now, the FLN is the recursive operation, call it "Merge." This is not "language," but it's proposed to be a unique human property of language, as the essay states. Any recursive procedure -- any algorithm that's going to create a system of digital infinity -- is going to have embedded in it somewhere an operation that says take two units that have already been formed and make up a bigger unit. Somewhere in any system you're going to find that -- whether it's an axiom system or Fregian ancestral or whatever mode you have for generating an infinite number of objects. This is what's being claimed to have been provided by a mutation ("rewiring of the brain") to an ancestor. If you want to discuss evidence for this, fine. But let's keep to the real world, not fabrications.

So, to use your quote in its entirety:

"Thus, a basic and logically ineliminable role for comparative research on language evolution is this simple and essentially negative one: A trait present in nonhuman animals did not evolve specifically for human language, although it may be part of the language faculty and play an intimate role in language processing."

Which is what they're arguing. How one goes from "Merge (FLN) evolved for reasons other than language" to "Language evolved for reasons other than language" is perplexing, unless of course there's emotional reasons for misunderstanding and deliberately fabricating as to make it seem absurd. You've already demonstrated your emotional attachment to functional analysis.

Read: FLN was not an adaptation. The 'argument from design' referred to above refers to nothing other than natural selection, which is clarified earlier in the paper: "Because natural selection is the only
known biological mechanism capable of generating such functional complexes [the argument from design], proponents of this view conclude... [etc]". — StreetlightX

The entire quotation:

"Hypothesis 2: FLB is a derived, uniquely human adaptation for language. According to this hypothesis, FLB is a highly complex adaptation for language, on a par with the vertebrate eye, and many of its core compo- nents can be viewed as individual traits that have been subjected to selection and perfect- ed in recent human evolutionary history. This appears to represent the null hypothesis for many scholars who take the complexity of language seriously (27, 28). The argument starts with the assumption that FLB, as a whole, is highly complex, serves the function of communication with admirable effective- ness, and has an ineliminable genetic compo- nent. Because natural selection is the only known biological mechanism capable of gen- erating such functional complexes [the argu- ment from design (29)], proponents of this view conclude that natural selection has played a powerful role in shaping many as- pects of FLB, including FLN, and, further, that many of these are without parallel in nonhuman animals. Although homologous mechanisms may exist in other animals, the human versions have been modified by nat- ural selection to the extent that they can be reasonably seen as constituting novel traits, perhaps exapted from other contexts [e.g., social intelligence, tool-making (7, 30 –32)]."

Also helpful for context:

"At least three theoretical issues crosscut the debate on language evolution. One of the oldest problems among theorists is the “shared versus unique” distinction. Most current commentators agree that, although bees dance, birds sing, and chimpanzees grunt, these systems of communication differ qualitatively from human language. In particular, animal communication systems lack the rich expressive and open-ended power of human language (based on humans’ capacity for re- cursion). The evolutionary puzzle, therefore, lies in working out how we got from there to here, given this apparent discontinuity. A second issue revolves around whether the evolution of language was gradual versus saltational; this differs from the first issue because a qualitative discontinuity between extant species could have evolved gradually, involving no discontinuities during human evolution. Finally, the “continuity versus exaptation” issue revolves around the problem of whether human language evolved by gradual extension of preexisting communication systems, or whether important aspects of language have been exapted away from their previous adaptive function (e.g., spatial or numerical reasoning, Machiavellian social scheming, tool-making)." (emphasis mine)

You're (1) hung up on language being defined narrowly as the Merge function and (2) on this having evolved through mutation quickly in one individual. The rest you fabricate. But the evidence points in this direction, I'm afraid.

For anyone truly interested in Chomsky's linguistics, here's a good place to start:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=068Id3Grjp0&t=4637s

Skip to about an hour in for specific discussions from linguistics in the audience. Some of it is technical.

Chomsky's framework is the most fruitful and influential one around today. So it's worth the effort. He goes through the dogmas of "language is communication" and "everything evolves gradually" -- which some here hold as well -- in this video too.

I get the sarcasm and your dislike, but I don't yet get why. — javra

He doesn't show he understands Chomsky at all, repeatedly. He's cited a number of articles by Chomsky's detractors, and one article from Science -- which he doesn't understand.

Combine that with insults and sarcasm, and the feeling of superiority from believing he's outwitted a famous linguistic, and it's fairly obvious what's going on. Comical, and not worth taking too serious. If he starts sounding like an adult, I'll maybe give it more time. But he hasn't said anything serious yet. I wouldn't waste too much time on it.

Free advice.

The problem is that anyone who understands just how insane Chomsky's take on language is would be able to see the evolutionary problem for it coming from a mile away - by decoupling language from communication and making it a wholly cognitive faculty, Chomsky can't, by way of design - that is to say, prior and unemprically to any consideration of evidence - he can't have it so that language was in any way evolved by means natural selection. Which is of course exactly the position he is committed to. — StreetlightX

Chomsky isn't saying natural selection doesn't happen, nor is he calling evolution into doubt in any way whatsoever. He's saying, and has said for years, that it's hard to see -- based on the properties of language -- how it could have evolved gradually. Perhaps it did, but it's hard to imagine given his conception of language. Now maybe his conception of language is radically off base. You, however, haven't made the slightest attempt at refuting his work in this respect. You've instead cited some highly questionable sources.

Quite literally, he has to be committed, on pain of incoherence, to the insane idea that language initially evolved for means other than language. — StreetlightX

I agree that this doesn't mean anything at all. Nor does Chomsky believe it. It's another figment of your imagination I'm afraid.

Not to mention that all exaptations that we are aware of were further subject to refinement by natural selection after that change in function - something else that Chomsky has to, and does in fact, deny. — StreetlightX

No, he doesn't. Again, you're showing your ignorance. Reading a few third-hand accounts of what someone thought someone who knew Chomsky might have said isn't interesting. Please cite some sources.

So we end up in this evolutionarily-nonsense position: language did not evolve via natural selection for any language- specific task, and once it came to be used for those tasks, it could not be subject to natural selection then either. It just popped into existence one fine day, and will remain the same forevermore. — StreetlightX

This is a fairytale created by you. A complete fabrication, which you would know if you deigned to read anything besides what you want to hear. But it must feel good to believe you're so much more brilliant than the father of modern linguistics.

You're kind of a joke, sir.

Primitive number systems are very basic. They go something like "One, Two, Three, more than three, more than all my fingers and toes". Depending on our need for precision and high quantity arithmetic, it's not necessarily obvious at all, from the conceptual systems we use to perform it, that all the numbers between one and infinity exist.. — VagabondSpectre

Every human being has the capacity for arithmetic. There's little evidence that many primitive societies use it. The Babylonians had a sexagesimal number system - does this prove something about arithmetic? Having words or symbols is not the same thing as having the capacity to learn such things.

To argue that we gradually acquired the property of the infinite numeration by gradual steps is a contradiction. Not having words for "more than three, more than my fingers and toes" is not the point -- that's already an infinite system.

Actually, yes we did... — VagabondSpectre

There's no reason to believe we did, given what we have.

Children aren't born with inherent comprehension of arithmetic, and if we did not teach them our number system and the operations associated with it, they would likely have very limited capacity to perform arithmetic. — VagabondSpectre

Children are certainly born with a capacity for arithmetic. If not, how would you "teach them our number system" in the first place? It's like saying without learning the rules of grammar, children wouldn't learn language. It's absurd.

Humans are born with a capacity for arithmetic. They're born with a capacity for music. They're born with a capacity for language. They're born with the capacity to see and walk. There's something in our genetic endowment that allows for this. This is not controversial. This is precisely why they can learn calculus, music, and language - and other primates cannot. To argue otherwise is basically arguing we're tabula rasa, which isn't very convincing to say the least.

There's data involved, of course. Just as there is with light stimulation in early visual development. That's trivial.

There's no creativity burst 100k years ago that I'm aware of... — VagabondSpectre

Well it's worth looking into.

But yes, we're still evolving, and yes, if there are selection forces favoring math or language skills, then the underlying genetic markers which yield those inherent capacities are still being optimized by the exploratory genetic algorithm that is sexual reproduction. — VagabondSpectre

Utter nonsense, I'm afraid. In your sense the visual system is still evolving. Fine- maybe in a few million years it'll result in something radically different from what we have now. To argue our inherent genetic capacities for language is currently being changed from "selection forces" is on equal footing. And pretty embarrassing.

Unless you can get into our genome and find a way to manipulate it to our ends, the "selection pressures" of our modern world will not change our genetic capacities.

Obviously, that doesn't accurately describe the situation! Again, you shouldn't be getting your opinions about a movement from its ideological opponents – be better informed and fairer-minded! — Snakes Alive

Good advice. Although a simple understanding of what you're criticizing is good start too. So far I see no understanding whatsoever. I wouldn't mind the denunciations, but the complete ignorance is comedic. Although when someone is so emotional about an issue, it's usually a good sign they haven't a clue about what they're talking about. I see it a lot with climate change deniers and creationists as well. Lots of emotion, zero understanding.

The relevant question is what is inherited, and how this inheritance (which magically evolved) functions to underpin the FLN. Chomsky offers not a single biological mechanism that would meet these two criteria, other than to handwave some kind of evolutionary exaptation as a promissory note in its place. This is like trying to say that we've inherited the ability to walk without talking about legs and gravity, and then, to add insult to injury, further speculating that we may never know what allows us to walk, other than to note that we possess 'the faculty' for it. It's so incredibly stupid that anyone who who even feels a jot of sympathy for Chomsky should feel their intelligence insulted. — StreetlightX

Before throwing around insults, try to demonstrate that you understand what you're discussing. What you've just described is such a strawman that anyone familiar with Chomsky or linguistics generally would consider it completely embarrassing.

You keep throwing around the "FLN" but then wonder about "what's inherited" and "how," which is perplexing. I'm almost certain that at this point your only contact with anything related to Chomsky is that one article in Science (yet it seems you've deemed the so-called "criticisms" of UG much more worthy of consumption). That's fine. But to feel entitled to throw around insults on this basis makes me think I'm completely wasting my time. Regardless, I'll respond more with other readers in mind.

The language faculty in the narrow sense. The core property here that Chomsky is proposing is Merge. That's what is uniquely human. This is, of course, a biological property on par with the visual system. It didn't "magically evolve." Any neurological reorganization that took place did so genetically, most likely through mutation. This involves the brain. Straightforward enough. Now compare your statement: "This is like trying to say that we've inherited the ability to walk without talking about legs and gravity". Yes, Chomsky and his adherents are so stupid as to believe humans' capacity for language is a miracle of God, or due to some other magic. Please shoot him an e-mail and inform him of his errors, by all means.


(2)

Chomsky's proposal is at once very specific (it's the FLN, which is comprised of recursion, exclusively), and entirely undertheorized (how is it inherited, and how does it function?: NFI). — StreetlightX

To quote the (apparently) one article you've deigned to read:

"The empirical study of the evolution of language is be set with difficulties. Linguistic behavior does not fossilize, and a long tradition of analysis of fossil skull shape and cranial endocasts has led to little consensus about the evolution of language (7, 9). A more tractable and, we think, powerful approach to problems of language evolution is provided by the comparative method, which uses empirical data from living species to draw detailed inferences about extinct ancestors (3, 10 –12). The comparative method was the primary tool used by Darwin (13, 14) to analyze evolutionary phenomena and continues to play a central role throughout modern evolutionary biology."

If the problem you're having is with the speculative aspects of how language evolved, fine. But neither Chomsky nor myself claim anything other than speculation. Your emotional response to this does show, indeed, how dogmatic gradualism has become. That's a shame.

A sudden "re-wiring of the brain in an individual" is incredibly fantastical. It's entirely possible that a small adaptation which enhanced language capacity snowballed as the mutation spread and refined, but this optimization would be gradual (and is in fact still occurring to this day). — VagabondSpectre

Yes, that's the dogma. But it's not true. The story of a "small adaptation" spreading and being refined is just as fantastical. It's like saying arithmetic developed by gradual steps. That's not the case. Either you have it or you don't. You don't go from 1 to the concept of infinity in a step-by-step manner. If one is a "just-so" story, or fantastical, so is the other. But given evidence for a burst in creativity a couple hundred thousand years or so ago, and given how small a timeframe that really is, it's hard to believe we gradually acquired our current capacity for language. To suggest it's "still occurring to this day" is absurd. I suppose our capacity for arithmetic is also evolving?

Firstly, our capacity for language is not infinite. The number of possible sequences of sounds we can make is infinite, but we cannot sounds indefinitely. We acquire shared language at a limited rate, and we have a limited capacity to store information pertaining to language (the idea-symbol relationships encoded in the brain). — VagabondSpectre

Language is a digital infinite system. Like the number system. You can create infinite expressions. This is so obvious to even point it out is stating a truism. Language is not sounds, nor did I ever claim that.

Secondly, words and language as we know them aren't the only kind of communication. As evolving social animals, our distant ancestors (the tree of hominids we're related to, and beyond) have been refining language capacity for eons. — VagabondSpectre

When did I say language is the only form of communication? Quite the contrary.

Our species have not been refining "language capacity" at all. Our ancestors acquired this capacity at some point, of course. But there's no evidence to suggest it's changed since (and which you wouldn't expect given the short time scale). If you mean to say that forms of communication have changed over time, then yes that's obviously true. So what?

You may want to conclude that if we can set dogs down the vocal language road in just a few thousand years of artificial selection, this is evidence of the sudden emergence of communication skills in our ancestral homonids, but we could also interpret this as evidence that the basic language and communication structures are far more ancient (and have been cooking for far longer) than Chomsky wants to reckon. — VagabondSpectre

Dogs do not have language. No one is arguing dogs have language. Yes, you can teach birds and dogs to vocalize in ways that sound like words, and you can teach chimps a few signs -- but none of them are capable of acquiring language. This has been tried in the case of chimps, and has failed. If it succeeded, it would have completely falsified Chomsky's claims.

Language is a human property and a "species property" in the sense that it's completely unique among living things. This is not a difficult or profound statement. It was acquired at some point in the past. Whether gradually or suddenly is up or debate and involves a lot of speculation which we can discuss. But let's at least be clear about what it is we're talking about.

I'll repeat once again: if you're defining language as simply another form of communication, then we're talking at cross purposes. Language, as a system of thought, can be communicated in various ways -- of course. But if it were simply a complex form of communication, there's very little reason why a primate couldn't learn to do what we're doing right now. They can't. Nor can any other species on earth. Furthermore, most of our "speaking" is, in a sense, to ourselves -- hence the notion of an "I-language." When I say "most," just introspect for a while: we're talking to ourselves all the time. How much of this gets communicated through speech, or sign, or writing, etc? Very little.

I suppose you're equally skeptical about relativity, evolutionary biology, electromagnetism, civil engineering, and other subjects of which you haven't a clue, as you are of climatology? Eh, never mind. This post isn't really for you.

Climate deniers just don't even question the reasons for why they deny anything is happening, why they bother with this at all when in other areas of science they couldn't care less. The answer is simple for everyone else: a massive propaganda and misinformation campaign by the fossil fuel industry, particularly targeted towards the leaders and supporters of the Republican party.

The new line: "The climate is always changing." This way they can deny they're living in a complete dreamworld. Yet, when pressed about the rate of change and its causes, their ignorance comes shining through.

I didn't mind it much when it came to Creationism, as that's relatively harmless (until they try to teach it in schools). But what science denial does in this case is almost guarantees a radically changed earth, which is already underway. It's hard not to feel very deep hatred for these ignoramuses.

I have no clue as to why being would be used in that sense but I suppose I'd have to expose myself to Heidegger for that. — Nils Loc

Or feel free to grill me on it. If I can't explain it well enough for you to understand, then I hardly have the right to simply refer you to some other authority.

Yes, I'd classify unconsciousness as well as death as non-being, granting the
major difference between those two states. — Nils Loc

Then consciousness is being? Like I said, you're then interpreting being in relation to the human being, particularly the human lifespan or human consciousness. That's not an unreasonable position, in fact its the view of most people, scientists included. I just happen to think it's not the complete picture.